Does anyone else notice that early-era pianists played much faster?

[cuberdrift]

Why is it that old recordings usually have classical music played much faster than how musicians play today?

I think over time as the audiences for classical music became smaller (by population percentage, not by actual number) it paradoxically became more "elitist" and "perfectionist" and so contemporary people have this view of the art form as this nostalgic, esoteric thing.

For example, the Joplin ragtime pieces are played way too slow during the ragtime revival era onwards. Even Jazz has this trend where players seem to focus more on the harmonics and texture rather than the swinging.

Rarely anyone plays Rachmaninoff's concerti in 30 minutes today as the composer himself did. Famous pianists almost never observe Beethoven and Chopin's uncharacteristically fast tempo markings. No one ever plays Chopin's "Tristesse" at the marked tempo.

The first "recording" ever made (which was IIRC a Haydn symphony?) is sooo fast.

I guess as an art form ages it becomes more and more suited for old people with old, elegiac sensibilities.

I don't know if I'm the only one with these thoughts.

[lelle]

I have noticed that and generally enjoy faster tempos as well, because they often seem more suited to really highlighting and holding together the melody/phrasing (but it shouldn't sound stressful/hurried or fast for the sake of being fast - the pianist needs to be in command and it needs to sound natural).

However, I don't think it's because the art form has aged and is suited for old people. Today's old people were once young and presumable many of them liked classical music back then too. And presumably there were old people going to concerts 50 years ago as well. I think it has more to do with reduced risk taking and increased fear of wrong notes. Modern tradition has been influenced by recording technology and our expectations of note-perfect playing have increased. I don't agree with this personally and prefer splashy but exciting playing over accurate but slower and less energetic playing.

[thorn]

Remember early recording technology didn't allow as much space as modern equipment, so in many cases performers played faster/made cuts in the case of Rachmaninoff to get it all on one track. So in some (but not all) cases it was just a practical consideration that modern observers read too much into!

[lelle]

^That is a good point also. Before the invention of recording on tape and LP discs, you could only fit up to around 5 of music on one side of a disc, so you had to 1) break the works up in sub 5 minute chunks which you recorded and 2) play faster or make cuts if necessary to be able to fit it onto a reasonable number of sides. For example if you could fit a work onto two sides by playing slightly faster and cutting a repeat, you often did that.

That being said, if you look at Cortot's discography, the overall duration of the works he recorded rarely changed during his career, but rather most works stayed the same duration even after the invention of tape recording (though he did slow down a bit in fast parts as he aged, he often compensated by playing slower parts a bit faster to get the same overall duration).

[quantum]

I suspect there might be something to do with how the piano action has developed over the years.  Today's pianos have a tendency to lean towards a much heavier action, as compared to ones produced a century ago. 

That said, listening to early 20th century recordings, pianists in that era played fast but had the ability to create a captivating and coherent musical expression. 

[lostinidlewonder]

I wonder if the medium the older recordings were made with are sometimes played back faster than the actual performance itself.

[truecam]

Nowadays almost anybody can record themselves playing, even recording in an actual studio is not prohibitively expensive as it once was.

Early recordings, on the other hands, are almost always going to be the best professionals or at least those with highest market appeal.